Talk:Children's rights/Archive 1

Missing Information
A children's right to a relationship with their parents is not covered. Michael H 34 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * So... cover it. • Freechild   'sup?   02:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added it. • Freechild   'sup?   13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. I made a suggested edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

U.S. constitutional rights
I notice there is a very brief mention of childrens' rights in the criminal justice process. Is this covered in another article? There are a wealth of resources on this subject, although I do not have time right now to read them and write something up for the article. If someone is interested, they might start with this outline, which is very good but rather long (16 pages).

The U.S. is only 1 of 193 countries. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be international, the U.S. Constitution is only 1 constitution and shouldn;t be given preference over others. Considering that the U.S. and Somolia are the only signatories that have have not ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is hypocritical to put such a country's constitution on this webpage.

http://www.youthadvocacyproject.org/pdfs/Search-Seziure%20Training-FINAL.pdf

This deals specifically with searches and seizures in schools. (It is written from a "defense" perspective but seems reasonably objective.) The major U.S. Supreme Court case on this subject already has an article, New Jersey v. T.L.O., and I am going to put a "see also" in this article for that, which is at least a start. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added a section to the article on US legal issues, and it seems to me that this would be an appropriate topic for a sub-article called Children's rights in the United States. Category:United States children rights case law has a good start of information to add, and there are other laws as well. • Freechild   'sup?   19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I added it someone deleted it again. And by the way this really helped me in my essay

"Opposition"
This section of the article (Children%27s_rights) seems kind of non-neutral to me. The beginning, "Opponents to children's rights believe that young people need to be protected from the adultcentric world...", sets a POV tone. People who believe that children need "protection" are not necessarily opponents of childrens' rights. Or, to put it another way, there are different ideas of what childrens' rights are (which is covered in the intro to the article but does not carry over into the quoted sentence.) Let's take me as an example; I believe children have the right to be free of abuse and neglect; they have the right to privacy but not always at the same level as adults (see my comment in the previous section); but they generally don't have the right to approve their own medical treatment (except in one specific situation which I don't want to mention because I don't want to divert the discussion); below a certain age (depending on jurisdiction) they do not have the "right" to consent to sexual activity; and so on. Those are my opinions, but they also happen to be the law, at least in the U.S. I thought about changing the statement so that it said "Opponents of 'an expanded definition of childrens' rights...", but as of now the article wouldn't support it because it doesn't say what is the standard view and what is the "expanded" view. And it wouldn't fix the rest of the section (and parts of the rest of the article) which seem non-neutral in favor of a view of childrens' rights that goes beyond what is generally accepted. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that there is no singular "generally accepted" understanding of children's rights, either in terms of a restrictive or "expanded" view, simply because the US's perspective is completely out-of-sync with international accord. With more than 192 countries around the world agreeing that children have a basic right to participation in the decisions that affect their lives; that children have the right to speak their minds on all issues that affect them, and; that children's best interests should be determined by adults working with children instead of adults working for children, it would seem to me that your belief about protectionism and restrictive children's rights is the minority view. Regardless, every statement throughout the article is cited with reliable sources; please introduce differing perspectives - as long as they are cited I will welcome them, that's for sure.
 * All that said, I do want to say thanks for your once-over on the article 6SJ7. You'll see I added material per your suggestion above. • Freechild   'sup?   19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I tagged the article by with NPOV because it was significantly edited by who identified herself as the Vice President of the Canadian Human Rights Council. Enviroboy TalkCs 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE The information that the person was identified as "the Vice President of the Canadian Human Rights Council" is false. Apparently the person above can't read.

The person providing the content was the Vice President of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, whose website is one of the most visited human rights websites in the world and in a typical month is visited by those from over 156 countries. The website is www.Canadiancrc.com WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DISPUTE>>>>SPECIFICALLY
 * Pardon me. I should have written "Canadian Children's Right's Council" and your edits to the article seem to conflict with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.  Also, at least try to remain civil.  Enviroboy TalkCs 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, what wasn't neutral about the point of view expressed? How can you possible object to the point of view of all countries in the world that have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Have you every read it? The USA and Somolia have agreed with it by signing it but have't ratified it because in doing so, they would be required to submit their plan on implementing the Convention. Having a 25% poverty rate for US children and failing to provide universal health care are reasons for Americans'to not report to The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva. Having a panel of chil;d rights experts from around the wworld question US policy on child poverty and medical care for all American children would be very embarassing to the USA.

You need to read more and educate yourself on child rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-MorrisVP (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted all of the edits by IP address 74.14.6.207. They add nothing of significant value to the article and crassly reflect the views of the organization in question, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Any editor interested in editing that article is welcome to; additionally, creating or editing an article on the notable Canadian Children's Rights Council is appropriate. However, using one's blatantly POV perspective to colour this general article about children's rights does no justice to any topic at hand. • Freechild   'sup?   00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consequently I removed the NPOV tag as well. • Freechild   'sup?   00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Freechild the vandal seems to keep damaging this webpage. Should you do it again, your vandalism will be reported and you abilities to make further alterations to any page may be prohibited.

From the Vice President of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, Sheila Morris


 * This article is not about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If you want to make edits about the CRC do it to that article. Your POV edits are disruptive and are being done to prove a point. As your title above illustrates, you have a conflict of interest in this article's topic that prohibits you from taking a neutral point of view. Please refrain. • Freechild   'sup?   18:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Freechild: the opnions of  191 countries who have ratified the Convention and the other 2 (The US and Somolia) that have agreed but not ratified it are what I have expressed.

Apparently you view yourself as a world-wide authority on the subject of child rights. I am.

You stated "As your title above illustrates, you have a conflict of interest in this article's topic that prohibits you from taking a neutral point of view. This is a ridiculous position for you to take. Experts on all subjects write for Wikipedia and your edits of my good work are vandalism.

What is your authority for making these specific allegations. They degrade the good work of others on Wikipedia.

The article had a USA slant on it and wasn't international in scope, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-MorrisVP (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please have a read of this WP:COI and this - WP:NPA. Also this might help - WP:COOL. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not seen any vandalism by FREECHILD, nor do I feel that there is a need to call other editors defamatory names. If there is any vandalism, I suspect that it will come from PAW and their POV editing. I believe SqueakBox has already been interfering with this article. Agnapostate (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased American views or an International perspective
It seems Tangerine and FreeChild want to keep polticians such as Clinton on this webpage. I suppose that everyone from around the world should therefore list politicians from there countries with views on child rights.

It seems that Tangerine and Freechild take the international position of UN Committee on the Rights of the child as meaningless although the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most ratified Human rights treaty known to our world.

IT DEFINES Human rights for children. Your content seems to be limited to American content.

I object to quotations from just American universities sych as Cornell. They hardly define child rights and have not played any major role in determining/implementing same.

As a recognized expert on the subject who has appeared on numerous TV and Radio shows across Canada and been quoted in the international press, I find you responses uninformed. Using your logic any authority on a subject should not write for Wikipedia.

There was nothing slanted about the content I wrote. You malicious actions, concerning content that you obviously know very little about, should stop.

Information provided on Amnesty Int'l position is false and misleading. The organizations that are cited as targets of Amnesty are opposed only to certain rights expressed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps you shoudl read the testimony of the mentioned orgaizations for yourselves to become educated. I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-MorrisVP (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, will you please sign your comments which should go at the bottom of talk pages not the top. Secondly I would ask you to remove my name from your message above and to stop attacking other editors in edit summaries and talk pages. I have made it perfectly clear that my only involvement in this is not because I agree with Freechild nor that I disagree with your edits. My only involvement was to try and stop the constant edit warring between the two of you by restoring the article to the last version on 30th March before all this started. So that the two of you could then discuss it civilly, the two of you resolve it and then you could move forward and edit it afterwards. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply
S-MorrisVP, I hope that you can work towards consensus on these issues, rather than how you have been proceeding. Let me address the specific issues you cite above:
 * 1) According to the Wikipedia article about her, Hillary Clinton is a recognized international leader in the field of children's rights, ranging from her time as a national board member for the Children's Defense Fund to authoring It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. Therefore, citing her as a reliable source is valid. Every politician in the world does not share those credentials or that recognition.
 * 2) The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child is not at issue here. Discussions about said committee and its validity should be cited in an article about that committee, given there are reliable sources. Likewise with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which this page is not about. Please limit your edits in this article to the topic of this article.
 * 3) As the article used to cite, there is no international consensus on what children's rights are. The U.N. definition was cited, along with definitions from several other reliable sources. Those sources are not less reliable because they are American; rather, they offer a less biased perspective on the topic. The same sentiment applies to your objections regarding Cornell, which is by definition a reliable source. They completely define child rights, whether or not you agree with their definition.
 * 4) Congratulations on your recognition; it appears to be in vain when you besmirch yourself as you have done here. Again, I hope that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on disruptive editing, neutral point of view and conflict of interest, as they directly apply to your behavior with regards to this article.
 * 5) Wikipedia does not rely on the expertise of its editors so much as the reliable citations they bring to the topics at hand. If you are interested in writing as an expert I would suggest you visit Citizendium or another such effort where they embrace that viewpoint.

Following are my concerns about the most recent edits you made to this article:
 * 1) Citing the website of the organization you work for is a violation of Wikipedia's policies about neutrality.
 * 2) Amnesty International is a well-recognized international leader in the fields of human and children's rights. Any citation of their perspective can be checked against Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources.
 * 3) Removing reliably cited content by internationally recognized experts such as Gerison Lansdown (who, ironically, has written extensively for CRIN and the UN) and Louis Althusser violates Wikipedia guidelines on editing to prove a point.
 * 4) Without a hint of irony you removed the line "Children's rights are defined in numerous ways" to replace it with your assertion of the UN's definition, which should be added to the article on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, not here. (I note that article has an advertisement for your organization under the Canada heading.)
 * 5) You changed the wording of a reliably cited phrase from a CRIN document to assert your organization's perspective - not CRIN's.
 * 6) Completely removing reliably cited material from two expert organizations - AI and Human Rights International to assert an non-cited perspective (your own) flies in the face of Wikipedia policy.
 * 7) Removing a large portion of text regarding a reliably cited topics (the difference between youth rights and children's rights again asserts your own perspective, rather than anything from reliably cited materials.
 * 8) Injecting a largely biased phrasing into a section you re-titled "Child / Parent Relationship Rights" and then utilizing your organization as the primary source violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality, and with the number of times you have cited your organization at this point it begins to veer towards violating Wikipedia's policy on spam.
 * 9) Again, you removed a legitimate citation from Amnesty International regarding opposition to the CRC in the US.
 * 10) Your valuable edits about children's ombudspeople get lost in the morass of your other edits.

I hope that you and I can work together towards a resolution, and that other editors will become involved in resolving this conundrum. • Freechild   'sup?   23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin assist
editprotected

Please revert the page to the last edit by User:Tangerines. It is clear that the aforementioned editor was disrupting WP to prove a point with edits violating WP:NPOV and most importantly, WP:COI. My appeal directly to User:S-MorrisVP has gone unanswered after 12+ hours, making it clear that this person, both as a registered user and as who identified herself as working for the org she was citing, was being disruptive and trying to prove a point. • Freechild   'sup?   16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The protection applied the other day has expired, so the page is currently not protected (you're free to edit). – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

groups opposing UNCRC
The generalization that these groups listed are opposed to all of the UNCRC is inaccurate and misleading. These groups are opposed to only certain aspects of the Convention. One issue most of the listed organizations have is their support of the corporal punishment of children as a religious right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.110.129 (talk • contribs)
 * I just added several citations and add'l information about the opposition to the CRC in the US. These citations support the contention that these orgs are opposed to the entirety of the CRC and not just bits and pieces. However, I am concerned that this section is overwhelming the content of the rest of the article, effectively diverting attention from the topic of children's rights towards the topic of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has its own article. Other thoughts? • Freechild   'sup?   16:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by "FREECHILD"
Freechild stated below "have reverted all of the edits by IP address 74.14.6.207. They add nothing of significant value to the article and crassly reflect the views of the organization in question, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Any editor interested in editing that article is welcome to; additionally, creating or editing an article on the notable Canadian Children's Rights Council is appropriate. However, using one's blatantly POV perspective to colour this general article about children's rights does no justice to any topic at hand. • Freechild'sup? 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Consequently I removed the NPOV tag as well. • Freechild'sup? 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC) "

Significant value was added. It is ludicrous to state "crassly reflect the views of the organization in question, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child." The POV of Freechild is that every country in the world is wrong because they have all signed the Convention and Freechild is right......how absurd. This same nonsense argument can be applied to any organization that has knowledge on a subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.6.119 (talk) date

Substantial information on the wiki page is American only and doesn't state the same.
There are frequent references to web site such as Amnesty International USA which have repeats of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Amnesty is 1 of 1,600 world-wide NGO's referring to the UNCRC. This sure is a round-about way of stating the obvious which is that the provisions of the UNCRC are implemented in the domestic laws of all countries.

It seems that Americans have taken out the logical statement about all countries have ratified the UNCRC except Somalia and the US, which have still signed the UNCRC. Much of this wiki page needs editing based on the UNCRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.6.119 (talk) date

This really is a bad Wiki page on child rights.
The content added by Sheila Morris VP really is correct. She has argued child rights issues before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council does an address on all three Canadian TV networks on Canada's National Child Day. He has appeared on Canada's most reputable TV news show, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) show CBC Sunday with Carole McNeille and Evan Soloman.

Whether you like it or not, the WORLD views the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as THE standard to which all countries must meet in there efforts to implement child rights in their domestic laws.

You really should let those than know about such topics, such as Sheila, add value and to the clean up this mess of a Wiki page. There is a great deal of wrong information on the "child rights" Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.6.119 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks
It seems to me that a lot of the redlinks in this article are unlikely to ever be created. For instance, "adequate housing" and "family rights". Those concepts are covered in parts of various other articles already (Affordable housing, family law, etc.), and if they did get their own pages it wouldn't necessarily be at those titles. Does anyone mind if I delink them? --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Take those redlinks away! • Freechild   'sup?   01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton
I've seen edits and undo's on Hilary Clinton's qoute under the heading Historic definitions (children's rights were a "slogan in need of a definition"). I'd like to start a discussion to try and solve it.

Personally, I cannot understand what the added value of this statement is. The fact that someone pointed out in 1973 that there is need for a clear definition, seems useless information (if she had given a good, globally recognized definition herself, that would be a different story, but now...). When you take into account that the qoute comes from a document that "... sets out the legal conception of children's status underlying American public policy and case law (Author)", the statement is most likely made concerning US issues. In my opinion out of place on two accounts.

There are more biased pieces. Isn't it wise to create separate articles on countries children's rights and laws, to begin with Canada and the US (which has been suggested on this talk page before). That will make it possible for all views to be mentioned, without biasing this page. Joost 99 (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the Hillary Clinton comment other than that all the removals I've seen have been for patently incorrect reasons.
 * As for your final comment, see WP:POVFORK. Splitting up articles is manifestly NOT an acceptable alternative to balancing them. --erachima talk 09:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * View was the wrong word to use, I agree. Area would have been better, as it is not a POV issue, but a geographical bias issue. I do think Canadian and US children's rights issues and laws are big (and interesting, by the way) enough to warrant separate atricles for them.Joost 99 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My original intention on adding the Clinton quote, which I've stated here before, is that she is a well-known politician whose role in the US children's rights movement is well-known and (used to be) respected. Authoring a significant publication (It Takes a Village), sitting on the board of the major American children's rights advocacy org (Children's Defense Fund) for several years, and lobbying on behalf of children's rights as the First Lady must account for some status. I was going to add quotes by Eleanor Roosevelt, but stopped because she wasn't nearly as topical as Hillary.
 * As for the national angle, there are significant variations in international perspectives towards children's rights - and that's well-documented, and obvious by the American attitude towards the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And the CRC really sets the watermark today for differentiation. So writing Children's rights in the United States isn't inappropriate, so long as their was a general children's rights article that existed - which there wasn't before I began this one a month ago. • Freechild   'sup?   12:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After reviewing policy, however, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to create the article - as much as I'd like to resolve this situation I'm afraid it would appear to violate the rule. So I'm going to add more international information/citations to this article in an attempt to build consensus. • Freechild   'sup?   14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the fact that creating new articles would be against policy (there are ample examples, as Human Rights->Human rights in Europe->Human rights in Germany or Family law->Australian family law). I do agree it would be a good start to try to blend it in the article itself first, maybe with a heading: Regional Children's Rights (and I see that it is easy to shout from the sideline without having the knowledge to contribute, so I would like to compliment you on your work. And yes, I like Hilary, but status doesn't warrant a qoute, if the qoute is uninformative or not to the point. Joost 99 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback about the scope of the article. Regarding Hillary, I am not particularly a fan; rather, I am a scholar who cited her in the context of providing a definition of "children's rights." I have found that her 1973 comment is regularly cited still today for its apt description of the children's rights movement - an opinion that apparently is not popular with children's rights organizations, but all the same is still valid because of the authority of the person saying it. • Freechild   'sup?   20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had thought the import of "Children Under the Law" was not just this description, but its argument that child citizens should not all be powerless individuals, and that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that rather courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis. See this NYT article for example.  "Children Under the Law" is heavily cited in other papers (see this Google Scholar search result for example); they can't all be to just the "slogan/definition" remark, can they?  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The weight of the paper doesn't generally extend beyond US academic circles though. What's most problematic about the argument behind removing reference to her is the notion that international children's rights law is somehow not informed by U.S. policy, research, or academics, who, as you point out Wasted Time R, clearly set the trend in this case: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is lambasted in the U.S. Congress because of the very article that mirrors exactly what Clinton wrote - more than 15 years earlier. If a citation supported it, mention could be made demonstrating the value of the paper; however, demonstrating ill-thoughts towards the US's childrens rights community is normative behavior nationally and internationally today, and I don't know if you'll find a citation. • Freechild   'sup?   13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

UK Position
The UNICEF statement from which you quoted re legal status Of UNCRC omits to mention that the convention is not legally enforceable and is hence perceived as 'aspirational' only - certainly in the UK. An ECHR ruling in 2003 offers a glimmer of hope of enforcement: "The human rights of children and the standards to which all governments must aspire in realising these rights for all children are set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child." (Extract from Sahin v Germany, Grand Chamber judgment of the ECHR, July 8 2003) Anti-Children's Rights propagandists often cite the old chestnut of Rights without Responsibilities. It is rather the case that children have Rights, which adults, States and Government have a responsibility to uphold.SJB (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

aHJiheuhtdgyuqhebugjhnthbgihnseunbhgwa!!!!111ONEONEone Children should have all the rights as adult should have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.73.231 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

18 years later, UNCRC is finally beginning to be taken seriously in the UK, and hopefully won't be another Gravy Train for professional in-fighting. http://www.11million.org.uk/resource/31f7xsa2gjgfc3l9t808qfsi.pdf SJB (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA
NAMBLA considers itself to be, among other things, a children's rights organization (the freedom of children to enter into consenting relationships). I'm not making any judgment on that statement, I'm just saying that it should be addressed here. In fact, I came to this article to see what relationship such pedophilic/pederastic organizations have with the other organizations that support the cause as they see it (I assumed hostile, but I wanted to know if there was any at all). I'm almost entirely ignorant of NAMBLA's interest in or actions on this issue, so I'm hoping someone else can spread a bit of light on this issue. -- MQ Duck 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)